Governmental Action Should Be Open To Wide Interpretation

October 13, 2012

I read with interest the op/ed by Lee Hamilton, who I greatly respect, and I fully agree with his premise.

The question came up during the first presidential debate, when Mr. Romney mentioned the Declaration of independence, in order to proclaim his liking of "freedom."

This is a favorite message from conservative folks, but I believe reliance on this document is misplaced. The Declaration is a menu of reasons for fighting a revolution, but is not our governing document. That place rests with the Constitution of the United States - the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution is several things. The main part sets out the structure of the Federal government - it's operating manual, so to speak. The Bill of Rights ensures the freedoms and liberties of citizens. But the most important part, the one part that is often overlooked as being merely an introduction, is the Preamble to the Constitution. That part establishes the philosophy of our government - it is the reason for its formation - the backbone of our society. Let's take a look.

The Preamble starts with three words that ring out: WE, THE PEOPLE. Not we, the corporations, or we, the Pentagon, or we, the anything else. Well, alright - what is it that We the People are about? We "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.".Why do we do this? ( And here comes the important part):

We do this, 1: "In order to form a more perfect Union" 2: "establish justice" 3: "insure domestic Tranquility" 4: "provide for the common defense," 5: "promote the general welfare," 6: "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

So the most important parts of the Constitution are the Bill of Rights and the Preamble. Any action by the Congress or the Executive Department, (or the Courts, for that matter) should be measured by those six criteria.

I recognize that they are very broad guidelines, and give a very wide interpretation of the legitimacy of any governmental action, but that is as it should be. How else can a people govern themselves over a period of several centuries, with increasing populations, changing economic situations, and changing outside influences and international alliances?

So I generally agree with Mr. Hamilton - the important question is "How do we run the country day-to-day?" rather than setting up ideological barriers to compromise and agreements. The ideological part is already established by the Preamble to the Constitution.